First off, I apologize if any of what I'm mentioning here is old news or has been discussed in other threads.  The search function on bitcointalk is fucked beyond belief.

For no other reason than I'm awake early with nothing to do, I was looking through my brokerage account's various investment strategies, and I came across a category for crypto--my broker is Schwab as I mentioned in the title, and compared with TD Ameritrade or even Scottrade before the buyouts happened, they blow monkey balls in terms of site navigation and UI.  Anyway, on the one hand I'm damn happy bitcoin (and crypto more generally) is getting serious recognition from institutions as starchy as ol' Schabby.

There's no straight-up bitcoin ETF, of course, but Schwab offers these:



After looking at the Schwab Crypto Thematic ETF, it's clear that if you bought in you wouldn't be buying any coins, any fund with coins, but probably a business or two that might own some crypto.  Meh.  I didn't look at the other one, which is likely even weaker tea.

Next we have the "Crypto Trusts"":



Now these I think I might have heard of before, and this is where I'm thinking that I could be treading on old ground.  But I never actually realized that these "trusts" are traded as OTC stocks.  Of course when I clicked on a couple to see the details, there's pretty much NO information on any of them provided by Schwab.  The only thing I gleaned about the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust shares is this:



This is apparently a fund that holds bitcoin, and I'm not really sure what the difference is between it and a bitcoin ETF.  But in any case, you've gotta laugh sardonically at the
statement, because how many expenses can there be for just being a fund that holds/tracks bitcoin and bitcoin only?  It's not as though it needs to be actively managed, but the net expense ratio is 2%!

And finally, there's Schwab's recommendation for people who really, really don't want to get their hands dirty with crypto but might want to dangle their toes in the muck.  These are regular ol' plain-Jane stocks that presumably have a tangential relationship at least with crypto:



Coinbase, Microstrategy, and Riot definitely make sense. 

PayPal, maybe.  They're just getting started with whatever it is they're eventually going to fuck up. 

Overstock?  I know they accept crypto and I don't think they use a payment processor like many other businesses do that accept bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, but I'm not sure how much they hold at any given time or that it'd be a good play on bitcoin in any case.  They're a retailer after all, and I'd assume that any profits or losses made by holding their stock would be due to their core business and very little to do with their relationship with bitcoin. 

Visa?  Guess I missed something important, because I would never have thought to buy their stock if I wanted exposure to crypto.

So that's Schwib-Schwab's crypto page in a nutshell.  Thought I'd share some of it for those who don't use them or perhaps have never even had an account with a stock broker.  I know there are a lot of young people on the forum who might not have had the chance yet--and let me suggest that if and when you do decide to open an account to make stock trades, steer clear of Schwab.  There are much better brokerages out there (I remember E-Trade circa 2002 and it was kick-ass even then).  And pssst: stay away from Robinhood as well.  They just flat-out suck.

What abuse are you referring to?  If I recall correctly there were a lot of people using bots to claim from faucets, but I didn't think that was still an issue as late as 2017 when you had to jump through all sorts of captcha hoops in order to claim anything.  That's the only abuse I can think of aside from people using multiple accounts on the same faucet site.

And the fact that there was abuse like that ought to tell you something about how popular these things were and how much people valued even a small amount of bitcoin--and they were right to do so, as I've already said.

Not for nothing, but if you're really, really into shitcoins and want to instantly get very small amounts of them, there's always this not-very-well-publicized faucet.  Note: I've got no financial interest in linking to that site, just sharing it for those who might be interested. 

Interesting topic, OP, because although I have a few names that come to mind as mentors, it's not something I would expect many members would have even considered. 

Again, I have several:
Vod: Gave me my first positive feedback which turned my trust green.
Lauda: Supported me getting onto DT2 way back when that actually meant something.
Blazed: One of the DT1 members who added me to his trust list.
hilariousandco: Supported me getting onto DT2 and was the second DT1 member to add me to his trust list.

But if you're asking what my first interaction was with any of them, I couldn't tell you.  But those members above were influential to me, and though I wouldn't have used mentor to describe them necessarily, it's close enough.

Amen to both of those statements.  I've heard of Robert Kiyosaki and I know he's got some very devoted followers, but I don't think his prediction of bitcoin's price at any point in the future is as good as anyone else's (until we know how it all turns out, of course).  And it sure doesn't look as though bitcoin is headed to $1 million, does it?

I think there is a crash coming, but I'm expecting the stock market to take the worst hit, as it's been in a long-ass bull market and by the laws of financial gravity it's got to come back down to earth eventually.  Whether the crypto market also gets whacked....I haven't a clue, but if there's a panic where everyone is selling assets to get cash, ChiBitCTy's first sentence above is spot-on.  Seems like we're getting a little taste of it already, because this past week a lot of markets went down, including crypto and precious metals.  Definitely not a crash, but it might be a slow trend, or the start of something speedier, or could be nothing at all.  Time will tell, not me or you or Robert K.

Yep.  The forum was different 13 years ago, even if it's only in subtle ways like this. 

But man, can you imagine if you were allowed to make anonymous posts these days?  This forum would be an absolute flood basin of spam and shitposts--and I'm talking more so than it was prior to the merit system.

Props to OP for reading through old threads; that's something I think people should do more of, because it's almost as good as reading a book on the history of bitcoin.  I've done a lot of reading of threads from the early days, and I accidentally stumbled across the first thread where the concept of a signature campaign was introduced.  Wish I saved the link to it!

Oh but man, if only you were able to claim a little bitcoin like you used to back in the day....I should be a millionaire for all the time I spent on faucets and buying cheap bitcoin (seriously) but instead I'm a fucking loser with nothing.

Coin_trader is probably right, though I'm guessing that it just became unprofitable for faucet owners, not because there weren't enough users.  I have no idea what the profits were ever like, but they had to have been minimal.  Faucets would come and go like the wind, so that should tell you something.

Props to you if you saved whatever you claimed from those faucets.  If you did, you were a true believer where I was a doubting Thomas.

I'm not sure a selloff of $373 million worth of bitcoin would tip the market to the downside, especially if Musk was shrewd enough to sell the btc holdings off in smaller pieces as opposed to dumping it all on the market at once.  Keep in mind that the stock market took a huge whack this week as well, and Musk and/or Space X had nothing to do with that as far as I'm aware.

And dammit, I was hoping bitcoin would break out to the upside after stagnating, but I guess it's back down to $26k for now (and hopefully not much lower).

Nope, and newbies shouldn't be blocked from making scam accusations IMO, because sometimes that's the only reason a person registers here, to drop some evidence that they got scammed and to warn everyone. 

As far as mumu68 goes, I haven't read both threads in full yet but if his claims weren't valid there's no way in hell a casino would be pressured into paying him anything.  If they did that simply because a random member of bitcointalk opened a scam accusation thread, every scammer out there would be targeting that casino with the same method.  In addition, if the accusation is unfounded the casino's official account usually posts some kind of defense, and I've seen that a few times.

But I don't know, man.  These days it's hard to tell who's scamming who.  There's so much of it going on, and when you throw gamblers and casinos into the mix....it's goddamn difficult.  I wouldn't pounce on mumu68 just yet; if his evidence of getting scammed is legit it'll stand up to scrutiny.  If not, there's not much anyone can do about it anyway since scams aren't moderated.  He could get tagged by DT members, but since he's not exactly an active member I doubt that would cause him much of a problem.

He's right about them being risky IMO, just based on some of the crypto disasters we've seen in the past year or so, but stablecoins harming the US economy?  Please, the US government is doing a damn good job doing that all by itself with its reckless monetary policies, heavy taxation, and the aftereffects we're now starting to see, e.g., inflation.  Compared to the carnage the government has left in its wake, stablecoins are nothing.

I snipped out the part where you said those coins are under scrutiny, but you're on the money about that.  My guess is that the banking lobbyists' power far outweighs the power of people fighting for crypto.  Banks have got to be the ones influencing politicians to go after stablecoins, requiring exchanges to implement KYC measures, and probably a bunch of other things we've not seen yet.  As an aside, the whole money laundering excuse they use is laughable on its face.  Compared to fiat, crypto is a tiny portion of the problem and doesn't deserve the heavy scrutiny IMO.

Ah, OP's post is refreshing to see regardless of all the viscous bile dripping from it.  That tone used to be a lot more common a few years ago when we had members freely speaking their minds about whatever problems or drama or whatever was taking place.  People who came here after 2019 or so probably don't remember all of the craziness with TMAN, TECSHARE, Vod, OgNasty, Spoetnik, cryptohunter, and many other members who would be at each others' throats nonstop.

I don't think Theymos minds all that much if he's called a cunt.  I think I've slung that epithet at him once or twice myself (with a dose of love attached, of course).  He's too high up there to take offense, know what I mean?

OP, hope you get your account back and that you return in full force.

Huh, I've never heard of that and will have to look it up out of curiosity.

You've got valid points, all of them, d5000.  They've been noticeable bugaboos in the crypto space since I started paying attention to it in 2014, and clearly since bitcoin was gifted to the world by Satoshi.  And damned if I've got any bright ideas as to how to remove any and all trust when it comes to crypto transactions--minds much more knowledgeable than my little pea-noggin have surely been trying to solve the problem all of this time, and it doesn't seem like there's been a breakthrough.

Not that this is an issue that affects me much, as I can't remember the last time I did a fiat-crypto transaction.  But I do think it's one of the things that turns potential newcomers away from buying bitcoin/altcoins, especially if they've gotten burned before.  We all know that scammers take advantage of anything like this to fleece people who are willing to trust an unknown counterparty as if they were a local bank.

I second this (although I don't have direct knowledge of the first claim, that Theymos has access to everything; you should just assume it to be true for security's sake).  But even though I think sensitive communications ought to be done off-site, I don't think there's ever been trouble as far as Theymos's end is concerned, i.e., I've never heard that he's released anyone's PMs to anyone else.  Not that he couldn't or wouldn't still do so, but he's always struck me as the type of person who respects others' privacy.

In the end....just don't trust anyone here more than you have to, even with PMs.

Maybe....but given that QS has a reputation for having had a posse of alt accounts at the ready when he needed them to support whatever argument he was making, I'm inclined to go with the evidence nutildah presented here. 

However, "underlying root cause" and "maximum benefit of the doubt" could just be phrases that were trendy at the time of posting (or at least had been used and picked up and used again by multiple members).  I've probably written the former one a few times in my life, even though "root cause" or "underlying cause" would be a more efficient use of words.  The rest of those misspellings are definitely not ones that most people who can speak and write fluent English would make, except perhaps for the "Rodger Ver" boo boo.

"Sow discord" is the correct way to spell that though, correct?  It's certainly not a common expression, but I know it isn't "sew".

Some of your connections have been on the money, and I daresay many of them have over the years.  Don't know how or why you turned this into an attack against you, but if the cause for the hunches is the same you ought not have a problem with any of this aside from your bruised ego, right?

If that's the case, the mods need to shut his ass down before he really goes to work spamming all of his nonsense.

If those questions were legitimate, you'd think there would be somewhat of a back-and-forth between him and the members who are trying to answer them.  Creating a thread and then just disappearing is typical behavior from newbies on bitcointalk, but this guy has multiple requests for help on very specific issues.  If nothing else, he ought to be following up if a suggestion works or if he's still having problems.

But I don't think his questions are legit, nor do I think he's a newcomer to bitcoin just based on stuff he's asking and the mixer it looks like he's trying to shill for.  Good catch on this one, OP.

Man, Blackrock is so loaded that they could probably corner the market in bitcoin if they wanted to (though I haven't checked what BTC's market cap is in a while).  Whenever I've been researching stocks, and I check who the biggest investors are, they're nearly always the largest investor--and it doesn't even matter what the stock is.  They have huge positions in pretty much everything.

As far as being afraid or having any other emotion concerning Blackrock and bitcoin....nah.  I don't know about all of this talk about them being a de facto branch of government, but if they'd wanted to they could have manipulated bitcoin any way they wanted to since its inception--and maybe they have to some extent, who knows?  I'm just not going to let unfounded thoughts run rampant in my head when there aren't any facts to support said thoughts.

I'm more curious about what the SEC and whatever other branch(es) of the US government are going to do as far as regulation goes.  I'm also hoping a republican gets elected to office as president and Joe Biden becomes another one-termer.  Not to stray too far into politics, but I do think a republican would be more supportive of cryptocurrency than a democrat.  They all suck anyway, but republicans tend to be more business-friendly and less enthusiastic about regulation than democrats.

Sure, but to have that as a requirement for logging in?  I wouldn't want to have to either sign a message from an address or do any other sort of 2FA.  If Theymos were to make such a feature optional, then I wouldn't be opposed to implementing a feature like that.  But if it was mandatory, forget about it.  I honestly can't stand any website that requires you to use 2FA to log in, and there are currently a few that I use regularly that do that.

I get how much more secure it is, but I'm of the opinion that anything like that which requires you to provide more personal information should be an opt-in feature.

Those aren't prerequisites for merit sources handing out merits, just so you know.  I'd be happy to merit posts in that thread provided they were good and they were in English (which they're not).  I'm not sure why OP is making an appeal for help to merit sources anyway--it seems kind of odd to me, especially since there haven't been that many posts made in his linked thread so far.

There's no rule against it that I know of; I just think it's odd personally, not that it's against forum rules or even that it's shady.  Does the Indonesian section not have at least one merit source?

Oh, I know this section has amazing people in it--and there's a lot of passion for bitcoin/crypto collectibles and for cryptocurrency in general that comes through loud and clear.  One of my first interactions a long time ago was with Lesbian Cow, and they were a lot nicer to me than I expected (though I forget why we had the occasion to chat via PM in the first place).  I don't avoid this section because I'm averse to the personalities but because if I spent much time here I'd be wanting to buy constantly.  I've got collectors' blood flowing through my veins.

Minerjones was also extremely generous to me when I asked him about capsules for the copper Zepher memorial rounds.  I think I asked him a question about the diameter not being standard and if a nickel-sized capsule would be appropriate, and he just sent me a bunch of them and wouldn't accept payment or a tip.  That's class, and I've been browsing Bitcoin Penny periodically ever since.

And thanks for the offer to assist with selling the Coldkey, I appreciate it.

Weird, I sold 4 of them already and grossed around $110 (ebay took their pound and a half of flesh, though).  I really didn't think they'd be that popular, though they are nice Ballets and are out of production.

Yeah, as I said to another member I didn't realize the fact that it might bring bile up into the mouths of a number of people in this section when I started this thread, and for that I apologize.  Since I'm not a regular here, I totally forgot how badly the funded Coldkey buyers got fucked over by yogg.  I'm getting a few PMs expressing interest in it, but since I can't put a value on it and apparently no one can either without actually running an auction for it, I'm not sure what to sell it for.  It's a really nicely presented card, and I'd rather hang onto it than sell it for just a few bucks (even though I'm hard up for money).

I haven't actually met either of my pen pals in person, or anyone else from the forum for that matter.  True, I'm a recluse almost to the extent of being a shut-in, but I've always wanted to meet some of the faces that go with the usernames.  Eh.  Maybe it'll happen one day.

Oh wow, I completely forgot about that--that allegation was made years ago, and there was another alt of his that was exposed around the same time, which was probably when QS was trying to defend his escrow scam (which I'm not trying to dredge up, btw). 

Since I've basically stopped caring and paying attention to the trust system, I wasn't aware of the '#' either.  With my trust list wiped clean, the display under members' avatars all looks the same.  Nice and clean.